[I wrote this at the invitation of Steven M. Cohen for his Library Stuff weblog, where it appeared on 9/11/02.]

Our country is less free. The government is removing information from the
internet and federal repository libraries under the theory that keeping
citizens uninformed is a price worth paying for keeping terrorists
uninformed. In the USA Patriot Act, Congress gave the executive branch
enormous new powers of surveillance, detainment, and secrecy, and many
members of Congress admit that they did not have time to read the bill
before voting. The Justice Department refuses to disclose how it is using
its new powers under the Patriot Act, even to the House Judiciary Committee
which oversees the Justice Department. The FBI has
lied more than 75 times to the secret intelligence court whose approval is
needed for Patriot Act wiretaps and other intercepts. One of our leaders has said that questioning our leaders only gives support to terrorism.

I regret the loss of this freedom, but I want to make a different point. I
regret above all the widespread acceptance of this loss over the past
year. One recent poll shows
that nearly half of the American public believes that the First Amendment
goes too far in protecting freedom of speech, and another shows
that two-thirds support government censorship of the internet even when it
doesn't help fight terrorism. What John Stuart Mill called the tyranny of
opinion has picked up where the new legislation has left off. Pointing out
that the country is less free is now regarded as an unpatriotic act. So is
a willingness to discuss whether our diminished freedom is necessary to
protect life. Patriotism in this sense is even regarded as more important
than honest discussion or the constitutional values that patriotism is
supposed to defend. I'm not dismayed that we've responded to a serious
threat with serious measures, and a willingness to sacrifice important
traditions if that proves to be necessary. But I am dismayed that serious
discussion about it is suspect, that the information needed for serious
discussion is censored, and that the value of serious discussion is not
among the values we are trying to defend.

Discussion and inquiry are not ends in themselves. When they are cramped
by law and opinion, then Congress deliberates in ignorance, the people vote
in ignorance, checks and balances fail, and self-government degenerates
into government by the knowing over the unknowing. Everyone outside the
inner circle must trust those on the inside, without knowing whether they
are trustworthy, and even after evidence emerges that they have deceived
other insiders. But perhaps all of this is necessary for some urgent
purposes, even for the ironic purpose of defending freedom. Perhaps, but
do we have to take that on faith as well, or can we discuss it?

If the discussion were allowed to proceed freely, and with adequate
information, then it's likely that we'd agree that some of the new
limitations on our freedom are temporary necessities to detect threats to
the country. But I believe that we'd also agree that some of the new
limitations on our freedom have no connection to national security and were
cynically enacted using 9/11 as a pretext, and that some were good-faith
overreactions that can now be corrected.

How bad would it be if the world saw the American people engaged in this
discussion? Would anyone infer that we were weak, vulnerable, and easier
to attack than if artificially united? Would this discussion "give support
to terrorism"? Yes, I suppose that some ignorant observers might draw this
inference. But others would realize that we were exercising the freedom
that we claim is worth defending, and that we were taking steps to restore
and protect it. I regret that my government is playing to the ignorant
audience. I regret that my government says that freedom is strong, while
weakening it, as if the rhetoric would be more convincing than the
reality. I regret that my government acts as if the American people were
part of the ignorant audience, and that its actions under this assumption
tend to make this assumption self-fulfilling.

It's usually facile to say that we must take certain measures "or else we
let the terrorists win" --for these claims don't do the hard work of
identifying what our attackers wanted to accomplish. I don't know what our
attackers wanted, and I haven't yet seen a detailed and persuasive account
from any source. We can speculate if we understand that we are merely
being hypothetical. If our attackers hated our Middle East policies, they have
not won and stand little chance of making gains. If they hated our
globalizing culture, they have not won, not gained, and certainly lost
ground. If they hated our religious pluralism, they have not won, even if
some Christian fundamentalists are publicly taking their side on this. But
if they hated our freedom the freedom to borrow library books or send
email without government monitoring, the freedom to know the facts on which
public policies rest, the freedom to give or withhold informed consent, the
freedom to participate effectively in self-government, the freedom to
question and inquire, the freedom to speak one's mind, and the freedom to
disagree even with true believers then they have made gains.